Inherent powers of Court for passing order for joint trail of cases.

This application is one under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent powers of the High Court to direct the Additional Special Judge, Dharmapuri to try C.C. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1978 together as one case and hold a joint trial of these three cases.

2. The facts : The petitioner herein was a Forest Range Officer at Harur and is the first accused in the three cases, C.C. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1978, on the file of the Court of Additional Special Judge, Dharmapuri. The order accused are other Forest Officers and contractors who have taken licence for cutting trees from various coupes in the reserve forests in Harur and Athur. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Central Range, vigilance and Anti-Corruption, registered a case against the petitioner and fourteen other persons under sections 120B, 379, 420 and 166 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and under section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against them was that accused 1 to 8 along with accused 9 to 15 and others entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit theft of valuable timber from the reserve forest area of Harur Range by taking advantage of the permit for transporting fuel from the panchayat forest and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, one or the other of the accused committed acts resulting in pecuniary loss to Government. The petitioner states that the entire investigation proceeded on the footing that there was one conspiracy among the forest officers including the senior officers and the contractors. Sanction was obtained for prosecution of the officers of lower rank and there ws delay in obtaining sanction for prosecution of one of two senior officers. Three charge-sheets were filed before the Additional Special Judge, Dharmapuri, who took cognizance of the cases and numbered them as C.C. Nos. 1/78, 2/78 and 3/78 against different sets of accused with the petitioner common in all the cases. The petitioner states that as the alleged offences relate to one and the same transaction they should be tried together in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflict of decisions. The Special Judge to whom an application ws made declined to try all the cases jointly. A-11, A-18 in C.C. No. 1/78, A-3 to A-5 in C.C. No. 2/78, A-2 and A-5 to A-7 in C.C. No. 3 of 1978 have no objection for the joint trial. But all others including the Special Prosecutor objected. The learned Additional Special Judge held the the contractors in three cases are different, that the period of conspiracy is also different and that if a joint trial is ordered, it would prejudice the accused, and in the end dismissed the application praying for such joint trial.

3. In the first instance, it is not disputed that a common F.I.R., is filed in these cases. A reading of the F.I.R. and other records shows that there is only one conspiracy. The object of the Criminal conspiracy is to commit theft of valuable timber from the reserve forest of Harur and Athur Ranges and to transport them by dishonestly using the permits obtained for purposes other than cutting and removing of trees, and to share the profits arising out of that act.

4. There appears to be only one object of the conspiracy, namely, to sell the trees so illegally cut and appropriate the sale proceeds. Several instances of theft of timber may have taken place in pursuance of that conspiracy and that fact itself will not change the conspiracy, nor could it split a single conspiracy into several conspiracies. Further, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the three conspiracies alleged are not distinct offences, but only one offence. Section 218 of the Code of Criminal procedure reads :

"218. Separate Charges for Distinct Offences. - (1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately.

Provided that where the accused person, by an app